Roll Back the Bans on MA/Non as Trading Guide Units [550+]

[Enbees]

i feel like the new "clarification" raises more concern that before. i havent read all thru this post since the staff response this morning, but i'll voice why i think so.

i feel like the post is contradictory or just fails to answer questions.

"How will staff determine fairness if everyone has personal values?

Staff do not determine whether trades are subjectively fair. Differences in personal value are not rule violations. Staff involvement occurs only when there is clear rule-breaking, such as misrepresentation of guide values, deceptive trading practices, scamming or other violations of trading rules."

okay, so users are allowed to value pets how they wish and staff dont determine if something is fair. however, does this mean staff have to find and determine which guide a user is using if they think someone is in "violation"?

"What about ninja trading? Do these rule changes do anything to help with concerns around ninja trading?

Yes. The following rule was added:

"Anyone found trying to take advantage of inexperienced players to exploit their lack of knowledge, particularly around our rereleases, may be subject to punishment."

Moving forward after this update, we will punish users who are obviously targeting inexperienced users with ninja trades (Ninja trading is when someone offers pets of a lower rarity, usually in bulk, in exchange for a pet that is likely to grow into a higher rarity outcome, without pointing out that difference and relying on the trading partner’s lack of knowledge). Yes, this includes trades sent with no message or just a message saying something like "Are you okay with this". We will use our discretion and judgment when making these calls and take into account the user's trade history and other factors that would help inform us of malicious intent."

wait, so staff ARE seeing of trades are fair? staff will determine this based on the messages as well? what about COPPA users? what about players who may speak different languages and a communication barrier is in play? maybe a younger user who isnt as developed with language? staff can check these things yes but now this is an extensive case-by-case analysis staff must complete.

-

these two points alone to me just make the whole clarification post useless. i dont understand how staff can literally say, "Staff do not determine whether trades are subjectively fair", but then will take the time to check guides, trade history, messages, etc?

maybe its just me and its not clicking, but i truly do not understand how staff is going to move forward with the logistics of this.

I just now got around to reading the Q&A, but these are also very similar to my thoughts. Especially with the first statement. With all due respect, this is exactly why scammers are never going to be properly punished without an official value guide. The overlying problem has never been the way guides were used, it's always been the ability to hide behind personal values because there are no official values. Nothing will change with regard to that.

People who try to misrepresent guides will be easier to punish, yes, but that's never been the only way to scam, and people who would do that will simply swap to another form of scamming, because there are plenty of loopholes to still be able to scam people. All this does is effectively make it so that if someone isn't using a guide, nothing they do aside from ninja trading can count as scamming. And as nice as it would be to believe that pets don't have inherently different values, they do. Scamming does not inherently follow guides, and is not solely ninja trading. There are inherently unfair trades that take advantage of others, and it would be the same amount of work to check history and evaluate on a case-by-case basis whether someone has a history of trying to take advantage of others as it would be to figure out if someone has a history of ninja trading.

I said it before and still stand by it; this is an entirely surface-level "solution," the problem lies much deeper than simply guide terminology.

[Thovatos]

I just now got around to reading the Q&A, but these are also very similar to my thoughts. Especially with the first statement. With all due respect, this is exactly why scammers are never going to be properly punished without an official value guide. The overlying problem has never been the way guides were used, it's always been the ability to hide behind personal values because there are no official values. Nothing will change with regard to that.

People who try to misrepresent guides will be easier to punish, yes, but that's never been the only way to scam, and people who would do that will simply swap to another form of scamming, because there are plenty of loopholes to still be able to scam people. All this does is effectively make it so that if someone isn't using a guide, nothing they do aside from ninja trading can count as scamming. And as nice as it would be to believe that pets don't have inherently different values, they do. Scamming does not inherently follow guides, and is not solely ninja trading. There are inherently unfair trades that take advantage of others, and it would be the same amount of work to check history and evaluate on a case-by-case basis whether someone has a history of trying to take advantage of others as it would be to figure out if someone has a history of ninja trading.

I said it before and still stand by it; this is an entirely surface-level "solution," the problem lies much deeper than simply guide terminology.

I just want to point out something-- even if CS *had* official values for pets, if I (for example) really wanted X pet and was willing to pay more than the official value of that pet to obtain it for my collection (as offering overpay can make achieving the pets I want easier), what would stop me as someone willing to pay over the CS official listed price? The same goes for selling a pet.

I say this in reference to the post above, because I am a user who only uses guides if trade histories for a specific pet are few and far between or are very out-dated.

There are a lot of reasons someone might what over pay for their pets which might not reflect guide values. Say, getting their pps dragon cat took them a very long time for them to get. It makes sense that *if* they were to trade it off, they'd want to have some kind of compensation to make their willingness to trade said-pet worth their time to try and hunt for another one again.

Another example could be that someone finally completed their 2009 staff pet set. Someone is willing to offer over pay on their shima longtail. For the user with the complete 2009 staff pet collection, they might take a trade on their shima if the other user is willing to over pay for the seller to break their set. That overpay essentially will likely make it easier for the original owner of that shima to get it back by joining the trade market again to look for it.

Not everyone is willing to over pay for pets and not everyone should expect these kinda of trades, however there are users who are willing to do so. Trade values of pets go up over time as people who were originally wanting the fair price for that pet cave and are willing to then overpay as well. This happens simply as demand increases.

The same could be said when people aren't willing to offer the 'full value' of a pet that's unpopular. People will (for example) only offer 80% of that pet's fair value, and eventually with enough trade history for a pet, the price will fall to reflect that. As demand falls, typically so do the price. This can be easily reflected in a lot of our OMGSR rats that rarity wise, should be worth a lot more.

If CS enforced hard-fast global values on pets, many users, like the two listed in the two examples above, won't be willing to trade their pets at all. I feel these pets might end up in a raven-situation where these pets might be forever-homed until more arrive in dec. 18th. I gather it would lead most of the trading year after dec. 18th to be pretty dry.

Trades do tend to lead unfair when people are trying to accomplish site goals or if the user selling the pets was already on the fence about doing it or not. I feel CS was built on the principle of free exchange, and I feel it should stay that way. Not saying people clearly going out of their way to offer commons for omgsr's or users offering invalid information on trading should be allowed to. I just feels there's a fine line and we have to be careful not to cross it.

Forgive me if I've misunderstood what you've posted--

[Enbees]

I just want to point out something-- even if CS *had* official values for pets, if I (for example) really wanted X pet and was willing to pay more than the official value of that pet to obtain it for my collection (as offering overpay can make achieving the pets I want easier), what would stop me as someone willing to pay over the CS official listed price? The same goes for selling a pet.

I say this in reference to the post above, because I am a user who only uses guides if trade histories for a specific pet are few and far between or are very out-dated.

There are a lot of reasons someone might what over pay for their pets which might not reflect guide values. Say, getting their pps dragon cat took them a very long time for them to get. It makes sense that *if* they were to trade it off, they'd want to have some kind of compensation to make their willingness to trade said-pet worth their time to try and hunt for another one again.

Another example could be that someone finally completed their 2009 staff pet set. Someone is willing to offer over pay on their shima longtail. For the user with the complete 2009 staff pet collection, they might take a trade on their shima if the other user is willing to over pay for the seller to break their set. That overpay essentially will likely make it easier for the original owner of that shima to get it back by joining the trade market again to look for it.

Not everyone is willing to over pay for pets and not everyone should expect these kinda of trades, however there are users who are willing to do so. Trade values of pets go up over time as people who were originally wanting the fair price for that pet cave and are willing to then overpay as well. This happens simply as demand increases.

The same could be said when people aren't willing to offer the 'full value' of a pet that's unpopular. People will (for example) only offer 80% of that pet's fair value, and eventually with enough trade history for a pet, the price will fall to reflect that. As demand falls, typically so do the price. This can be easily reflected in a lot of our OMGSR rats that rarity wise, should be worth a lot more.

If CS enforced hard-fast global values on pets, many users, like the two listed in the two examples above, won't be willing to trade their pets at all. I feel these pets might end up in a raven-situation where these pets might be forever-homed until more arrive in dec. 18th. I gather it would lead most of the trading year after dec. 18th to be pretty dry.

Trades do tend to lead unfair when people are trying to accomplish site goals or if the user selling the pets was already on the fence about doing it or not. I feel CS was built on the principle of free exchange, and I feel it should stay that way. Not saying people clearly going out of their way to offer commons for omgsr's or users offering invalid information on trading should be allowed to. I just feels there's a fine line and we have to be careful not to cross it.

Forgive me if I've misunderstood what you've posted--

Oh no, I absolutely agree. There would definitely need to be plenty of flexibility to it!
I definitely think it's a bad idea to have a hardfast set of values with no user input whatsoever, and to not allow any personal value at all.

I think with something like this, it ends up having to rely a lot on player history, like they said they'd do for ninja trading. Not necessarily the idea that an unfair trade is inherently against the rules, because they definitely shouldn't be, but a way to properly be able to check in and see if theres a history of unfair trades with one person on the profiting side.

[Thovatos]

Oh no, I absolutely agree. There would definitely need to be plenty of flexibility to it!
I definitely think it's a bad idea to have a hardfast set of values with no user input whatsoever, and to not allow any personal value at all.

I think with something like this, it ends up having to rely a lot on player history, like they said they'd do for ninja trading. Not necessarily the idea that an unfair trade is inherently against the rules, because they definitely shouldn't be, but a way to properly be able to check in and see if there's a history of unfair trades with one person on the profiting side.

Ah yeah, I got ya'. Forgive me, I remember being around when the trading scene was a lot more vicious and combative. I don't think it's any better now with how reluctant people are willing to trade now-a-days-- I just worry the stance of 'anyone who doesn't use guides is a scammer' will be a mentality that gets adopted by the masses. While guides are super helpful, there's a reason they're not called 'rules'.

There are a lot of players who's only way of getting the pets they want is by trading. With their pets, the only way they can really get to the ones higher they want is by finding trades in their favor (overpay for their critters). I personally don't see anything wrong with it, as long as they don't misrepresent that their prices are based in that idea.

I do greatly appreciate you hearing out my perspective!

[serilly]

Logged in to do the pound and get my monthly pets. Met with this. What an unfathomably dumb decision.

[Papilio Ulysses]

Logged in to do the pound and get my monthly pets. Met with this. What an unfathomably dumb decision.

While the announcement about all this was sudden, the issues with MA/Non have been brewing under the radar for quite some time. I strongly suggest having a look at the input here: [Suggestion] more strict rules on scamming. That thread is one of a few in recent years that may not have garnered nearly as much attention from the community as this one, but the concerns expressed within are very real. >< This leads me to believe the staff have put a lot of thought and care into making this difficult decision.

[Tendo64]

I just now got around to reading the Q&A, but these are also very similar to my thoughts. Especially with the first statement. With all due respect, this is exactly why scammers are never going to be properly punished without an official value guide. The overlying problem has never been the way guides were used, it's always been the ability to hide behind personal values because there are no official values. Nothing will change with regard to that.

People who try to misrepresent guides will be easier to punish, yes, but that's never been the only way to scam, and people who would do that will simply swap to another form of scamming, because there are plenty of loopholes to still be able to scam people. All this does is effectively make it so that if someone isn't using a guide, nothing they do aside from ninja trading can count as scamming. And as nice as it would be to believe that pets don't have inherently different values, they do. Scamming does not inherently follow guides, and is not solely ninja trading. There are inherently unfair trades that take advantage of others, and it would be the same amount of work to check history and evaluate on a case-by-case basis whether someone has a history of trying to take advantage of others as it would be to figure out if someone has a history of ninja trading.

I said it before and still stand by it; this is an entirely surface-level "solution," the problem lies much deeper than simply guide terminology.

I just want to point out something-- even if CS *had* official values for pets, if I (for example) really wanted X pet and was willing to pay more than the official value of that pet to obtain it for my collection (as offering overpay can make achieving the pets I want easier), what would stop me as someone willing to pay over the CS official listed price? The same goes for selling a pet.

I say this in reference to the post above, because I am a user who only uses guides if trade histories for a specific pet are few and far between or are very out-dated.

There are a lot of reasons someone might what over pay for their pets which might not reflect guide values. Say, getting their pps dragon cat took them a very long time for them to get. It makes sense that *if* they were to trade it off, they'd want to have some kind of compensation to make their willingness to trade said-pet worth their time to try and hunt for another one again.

Another example could be that someone finally completed their 2009 staff pet set. Someone is willing to offer over pay on their shima longtail. For the user with the complete 2009 staff pet collection, they might take a trade on their shima if the other user is willing to over pay for the seller to break their set. That overpay essentially will likely make it easier for the original owner of that shima to get it back by joining the trade market again to look for it.

Not everyone is willing to over pay for pets and not everyone should expect these kinda of trades, however there are users who are willing to do so. Trade values of pets go up over time as people who were originally wanting the fair price for that pet cave and are willing to then overpay as well. This happens simply as demand increases.

The same could be said when people aren't willing to offer the 'full value' of a pet that's unpopular. People will (for example) only offer 80% of that pet's fair value, and eventually with enough trade history for a pet, the price will fall to reflect that. As demand falls, typically so do the price. This can be easily reflected in a lot of our OMGSR rats that rarity wise, should be worth a lot more.

If CS enforced hard-fast global values on pets, many users, like the two listed in the two examples above, won't be willing to trade their pets at all. I feel these pets might end up in a raven-situation where these pets might be forever-homed until more arrive in dec. 18th. I gather it would lead most of the trading year after dec. 18th to be pretty dry.

Trades do tend to lead unfair when people are trying to accomplish site goals or if the user selling the pets was already on the fence about doing it or not. I feel CS was built on the principle of free exchange, and I feel it should stay that way. Not saying people clearly going out of their way to offer commons for omgsr's or users offering invalid information on trading should be allowed to. I just feels there's a fine line and we have to be careful not to cross it.

Forgive me if I've misunderstood what you've posted--

Hey Thova! If I can offer my two cents--I think most people calling for numbers to be released don't want them to be considered rigid and followed strictly. I think people just want a more clear baseline, a confirmation on what's objectively rare and then go from there for demand. It'd allow for a lot more accuracy and comparatively more consensus. We then potentially can ask users, perhaps--to actually clarify they want overpay if they personally value them higher? Because having official numbers means we know for sure what's overpay and what isn't, and have some kind of frame of reference to start from.

[Thovatos]

Oh, perhaps I should have clarified! I'm never against CS releasing the true rarity numbers for pets. In fact, I really encourage it! My only issue, is I know CS will not do that-- If CS makes it's own 'value' list without any backing from official numbers of how many pets there are, we'd end up in a situation of just any other list, however, backed and created by staff, I fear users may take a staff-made list as hard-fast values with no consideration for the fluctuation of demad.

Honestly it's why I feel CS staff have been so hands-off thus far. I think they fear the same thing if they make their own kind of value list. They've stated plenty they refuse to release actual numbers.

[Wintersham]

Forgive me it’s almost 3am and I’m sleepy but found this thread. I tried to read what I could but forgive me if I miss a lot of stated points.

While I do appreciate why they explained why players can still use the old terms, and guides can not it..feels like it doesn’t make sense. If guides are banned from using the old terms, terms that have been around forever, but now can only be “player trusted” when asked for returning/new players, I feel like that creates a whole scene where..it’s easier to scam people now? I been here a while and I still can’t wrap my head around the whole Non/Old Rare/Main thing. Now we are banning resources explaining what it was/comparisons? It feels really hastily made decision. It feels like it’s trying to appease both parties while hurting both at the same time. You can’t ban the explanation of those terms and let players still use it? Players are going to trust those who use the old terms when trading and scammers will take advantage of that too. I can’t trust myself to trade my old pets fairly now, even with a new system.

While I would be supportive of removing the old system for someone not..trade smart like me, and while I do like the new simplified system of Horror’s, this feels like a change that was made to “help” us while not giving us enough official info of actual rarities. If the whole point was to make the system less confusing/prevent, then we need info on what’s actually valuable to reset the system. Something to actually help players not forum guided/trade smart to check for themselves on valuable pets on the pets they are old.

[Tendo64]

Oh, perhaps I should have clarified! I'm never against CS releasing the true rarity numbers for pets. In fact, I really encourage it! My only issue, is I know CS will not do that-- If CS makes it's own 'value' list without any backing from official numbers of how many pets there are, we'd end up in a situation of just any other list, however, backed and created by staff, I fear users may take a staff-made list as hard-fast values with no consideration for the fluctuation of demad.

Honestly it's why I feel CS staff have been so hands-off thus far. I think they fear the same thing if they make their own kind of value list. They've stated plenty they refuse to release actual numbers.

Yeah I know, I speak from hypotheticals 😔 I agree I wouldn't want an official guide without some numbers behind it either. At least not one that has to be abided strictly.

I know CS will never release numbers. I suppose the decision just kind of baffles me. Because not doing so makes it so much more difficult to draw the line between scammers and those who just disagree, when needing to account for scammers who are sneaky about it.